We can’t argue with the view from 2288 Broadway #5 nor the windows from which to view it.
2288 Broadway #5 Floor Plan
Last reportedly sold for $2,500,000 in 1997 (after which it was completely overhauled) and not official inventory according to the MLS, but an assessed value of $7,635,104 and offer to sell for $7,995,000 would suggest otherwise on both accounts.
∙ Listing: 2288 Broadway #5 (3/3.5) 4,000 sqft – $7,995,000 [sfproperties.com] [View]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    Here’s a great example of what I meant by a “useful view” on an earlier thread. The view face of this unit is where the living room, dining room, and terrace are located : places where you expect to spend your waking hours relaxing and enjoying the view. Flip the floorplan around and those same views are now from the bedrooms. Not as useful.
    “useful view” sounds a bit stiff and awkward. Perhaps there’s a better term.

  2. Posted by eddy

    Interestingly priced lower than 2006 Washington with arguably better views and potential, and more space? I’ve always like this building and don’t think I’ve seen another unit come up in the past 5 years so I’d say this is one of the more exclusive buildings and the grounds are maintained extremely well. $2000/psf? Not sure about that figure. Hard to value this place but should be an interesting comp when sold. I’d have to think 2k/psf is achievable here, but it will not be easy. I’d say at $6M this is a good buy. It certainly make 2006 Washington look more affordable and perhaps that is part of the strategy too.

  3. Posted by eddy

    This place probably has one of the best views in the city. I’d take those views from a closet, kitchen, bathroom, or anywhere for that matter. There are homes with no view and homes with views. Once you are in the “with view” category you can start to break it down further. Limited views, partial views, obstructed views, etc…
    Does anyone know if this building has a common roof deck or any other amenities?

  4. Posted by Scooter

    Do you guys think it’s photo distortion making the ceilings look so low? Also, interesting no photos of the bedrooms. Will be curious to see if they update the site with more pics.
    From photos only, I prefer 2006 Washington, in the theoretical world where I could afford either.

  5. Posted by kthnxybe

    I bet if I had that flat, I would slip and break my neck on that bathroom floor in the middle of the night.
    That’s what I am going to keep telling myself, anyway. Also, I bet there’s some grapes in that refrigerator that aren’t very sweet.

  6. Posted by sleepiguy

    I saw this on Malin’s site a few days ago… It’s more RE porn than a data point.
    Anyway, best views in Pacific Heights.. The city maybe? Same argument with 2304 Broadway – the townhouse which ended up selling for 5.2ish. Same square footage.
    How often do units here come on the market? Maybe one in the 00s.

  7. Posted by bossmillion

    I have this identical view from my studio apt on Broadway. I pay just over $1500.
    In my case an unobstructed view like that makes the small space feel much bigger.
    The premium on buying a view appears drastically greater than the premium on renting one.

  8. Posted by Outsider

    1. Views are nice but your brain quickly gets used to it. In a year, you almost don’t notice it anymore.
    2. How do people buy an 8 million dollar home ? Can you finance it – with a personal line of credit ? May be you can just turn over 17,000 shares of Google and eat the capital gain tax…

  9. Posted by Kurt Brown

    I pencil this out at about $1300 / day to live there, assuming a mortgage of some non-fantasy sort. With the furnishings I’d need financed by a second mortgage (easily obtained, of course), let’s say $1500 / day.
    I think I could rent it for that for sure. I’m thinking all those Chinese investors looking for high end SF real estate to invest in are gonna need a nice place to stay while they troll for bargains. I’d even make sure the grapes in the fridge stayed sweet for guests.
    The coop board is gonna love me!

  10. Posted by eastbaymike

    “1. Views are nice but your brain quickly gets used to it. In a year, you almost don’t notice it anymore.”
    Not true. Not true. Not true.

  11. Posted by jlasf

    Beautifully remodeled. Anyone know the decorator? Also, is that a Murphy bed hidden in the wall of the office?

  12. Posted by ex SF-er

    Also, is that a Murphy bed hidden in the wall of the office?
    that was going to be my question too…
    the place is gorgeous even though it’s not quite my style. That bathroom is a luxury bathroom. compare that to these ridiculous “luxury” condos that we saw built in the last few years.
    the details are amazing, the views are amazing.
    I agree that your brain quickly gets used to the views, but our brains quickly get used to a lot of things, including the entire building, the furnishings, the view, and almost everything about one’s life!
    For instance: how many of you cherish your car the same way you cherished it the first time you bought it? Or a piece of art? and so on.
    although the novelty clearly wanes, I’d still love to have that view over a view of a brick wall or something. and I like this sort of view more than Ocean view because city views are more dynamic, especially at night (a night time view of the ocean is a black window!)

  13. Posted by noearch

    nice views but…
    drippy, old lady interiors..what kind of people live that way today?
    down-light overload too.

  14. Posted by kthnxybe

    I agree with eastbaymike about the view thing. My desk out at the VA has a lovely view of the Golden Gate (the water, not the bridge, though I walk outside to see that), the headlands and Mt. Tam. It takes my breath away *every* morning and I’ve worked here four years now.
    I don’t think I’d *ever* get tired of the view in this property, with so much more going on.

  15. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    ^^^ An office with a view is the #1 “useful view”, even better than a living room. But that’s commercial property unless we’re talking home office. I’m envious kthnxybe.
    (dispatched from my windowless bunker)

  16. Posted by jlasf

    Noearch, :”Drippy, old lady interiors.” The only thing that’s “old” is that it has an “old money” look. Classic style, but not for those who dwell on “Dwell.”

  17. Posted by sleepiguy

    I don’t think there’s anything “Old Lady” about this place. I made the argument in a previous thread that high-end buyers in D7 seem to prefer slightly more traditional styles. For example, someone bought 2849 Pacific, but not 2342 Broadway. Likewise, the Presidio Heights home at 200 Locust sold instantly for a similar price to this unit while 3577 Pacific struggled to find a buyer. I think buyers here tend to go for “timeless” as opposed to trendy.

  18. Posted by noearch

    well, yea..it does have that “old” money look, I guess..if you’re an old dowager..
    dark, dreary kitchen…trying to pretend it’s one big armoire.
    glitzy, “french” louis the who decor…
    yea, I know it’s just an interior, but seriously dated..

  19. Posted by sleepiguy

    I do want to add though, that this is a 1950s building… I think the 19th century inspired interior is sort of inappropriate for the structure. I love traditional – but in traditional homes. This isn’t a Victorian or Edwardian house. It’s a 50′s mod building with lots of glass walls and low ceilings. I’d rather have seen a contemporary take on that with low profile furniture and more clean lines. Is the furniture staged? I’m guessing it is.

  20. Posted by eddy

    Regarding the look, I found it interesting that on 2006 washington they have now included a pictorial of a few other fully remodeled homes. Some good RE Porn:
    http://www.sfproperties.com/properties/2006washington_4/images/interior_one/index.html
    http://www.sfproperties.com/properties/2006washington_4/images/interior_two/index.html

  21. Posted by eddy

    Or you could rent a PH across the street for 11k/mo
    http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1573725453.html

  22. Posted by noearch

    yea, the interior #1 by Andrew Skurman is more what I’m talking about..classy, understated elegance..softly modern, fresh and well thought out..
    now that’s what I call style..

  23. Posted by salarywoman

    noearch:
    Andy?

  24. Posted by noearch

    according to one of the sites, that’s who designed the interiors.

  25. Posted by eddy

    This place is back on sfproperties.com again. No change in listing price.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *